1

Understanding the nature of Project Management Capacity in Sri Lankan Non-

Governmental Organizations (NGOs): A Resource Based Perspective.

Abstract

Project Management (PM) capacity can be defined as PM resources and capabilities that are

supporting for effective project operations. Using the Resource Based Perspective, the paper

aims to explore the nature of PM capacity in NGOs and develops a framework for PM capacity

in NGOs. A case study approach and qualitative methods have been applied for this study.

For this study, the literature on PM resources and Organizational capacity was reviewed and a

theoretical framework was created. This theoretical framework was then explored using four

case studies conducted at Local and International NGOs in Sri Lanka. The study identified three

levels of PM Capacity: Team PM Capacity, Organizational PM Capacity and Collaborative

Social PM Capacity, a Capacity that has not yet been identified in the literature which supports

adaptation to the complex, uncertain environments in which some NGOs operate.

Keywords: PM Capacity, Team PM Capacity, Organizational PM Capacity, Collaborative

Social PM Capacity, Resource Based Perspective, and NGOs

1. Introduction

2

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are generally considered to be non-state, non-profit-

oriented groups that function in the public interest (World Bank, 2001; Schmidt and Take, 1997).

Since the 1980s, NGOs have become prominent players in community, national and international

development (Bagci, 2003; Malena, 1995). NGOs are particularly active in developing countries

where they play prominent roles in development activities and vulnerability reduction (United

Nations Development Programme (UNDP), 2014). Historically, NGOs originated in the early

1800s (Nalinakumari and MacLean, 2005) and the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society was

known as the first structured NGO, being established for banning slavery in the British Empire

(Nalinakumari and MacLean, 2005; Nadelman, 1990).

According to Korten (1990), the evolution of NGOs has occurred over four generations. The first

generation was relief and welfare-oriented and aimed for direct delivery of services to meet

immediate needs during an emergency due to natural disasters or war (Bagci, 2003). The second

generation was oriented for community development and involved developing the capacities of

community people to better meet their own needs through self-reliant local action. The third

generation moved forward to sustainable systems development. This generation looked for

changes in specific policies and institutions at local, national and global levels. The final, fourth

generation focused on social movements and global change. These focused on people-centred

development on a global scale. Within the past three decades people’s movements have reshaped

thought and action on the environment, human rights, women, peace and population. These third

and fourth generations of NGOs are increasingly focusing on strategic management and

collaborative networking management orientations in order to fulfil their national and global

development objectives (Lewis and Kanji, 2009).

3

The present fourth generation of NGOs operates increasingly in a turbulent and competitive

context and undertake a variety of humanitarian efforts for global social change and development

(Lewis and Kanji, 2009; Lyons, 2001; Korten, 1990). They strive for stronger institutional

capacities and stimulate collaborating networks in order to sustain or survive for a long period

and deliver their complex of services to a vulnerable population (Weerawardena et al., 2010;

Lusthaus et al., 2002).

1.1 Unique Characteristics of Projects delivered by NGOs

A substantial number of NGO activities are project-based (Strichman et al., 2008) since these

are temporary interventions to fulfil community emergencies or needs. NGOs can work in

country environments in which institutional capacity is limited due to emerging economy status

(Dedu et al., 2011) or as a result of natural disasters (Crawford and Bryce, 2003). As a result,

infrastructure may be lacking and the NGO may be required to duplicate functions provided by

the state in a developed country such as access and security before project activity can take place

(Hekala, 2012). NGOs deliver complex social, economic and physical interventions in which

outcomes are difficult to measure. This creates challenges in monitoring and evaluating these

projects using approaches developed within industries which deliver tangible outputs such as

construction (Dedu et al., 2011). A related challenge that NGO projects are required to engage

with a wide variety of stakeholders such as donors, host communities and beneficiaries

(Easterly, 2009) who need to be formally consulted during the process. To meet the demands of

these stakeholders while operating in difficult country environments may require adaptation to

project systems, tools, processes and activities (Ika et al., 2012; Shleifer, 2009).

4

1.2 Project Management in NGO research

The first strand of research examines the factors that influence NGO project delivery and

outcomes (Ika et al., 2012). NGOs are required to manage political, social, legal, technical and

cultural issues in host environments (Struyk, 2007). Managing these factors may require

stakeholder engagement in order to develop approaches that are sensitive to the host country

(Yu and Leung, 2015). This can require the development of a management structure and project

team (Khan et al., 2000) that can adapt project processes to the country context (Youker, 2003).

Since NGO projects are aimed at providing long term benefits, a success factor is also the

transfer of knowledge to host communities (Yalegama et al., 2016).

The second strand of research examines NGO project management tools and methodologies.

Researchers have examined the extent to which traditional PM tools are used by NGOs

(Golini et al., 2015) along with the need to adopt additional tools from program management

(Korten, 1987). A significant amount of research has examined the adoption and limitations of

the logical framework, a commonly used NGO PM tool (Khang and Moe, 2008). Newer, NGO

specific methodologies have also been proposed such as the PMD Pro 1 Guide

(Hermano et al., 2013). Research has also compared traditional and NGO specific PM tools

(Golini and Landoni, 2014).

Finally, the evaluation of NGO project outcomes has attracted attention from researchers.

Previous work has examined traditional “iron triangle” metrics such as cost and schedule

(Ahsan and Gunawan, 2010). Other researchers have included additional project delivery

5

measures such as quality, site disputes, safety and environmental impact

(Ngacho and Das, 2014). Related work also examined the reasons for failure of development

projects (Ika, 2012).

While previous work has generated valuable insights into the type and effectiveness of NGO

project activities, there has been little attempt to examine the project capacity of NGOs. Existing

capacity development activities mainly focus on development of internal capacity of NGOs to

improve organisational performance and sustainability (Bryson, 2004; Lusthaus et al., 2002;

Bryson et al., 2001). Research suggests that NGO resources are important for successful delivery

of projects, however, existing work focuses on examining a narrow range of explicit or tacit

resources. They have focused on human resources, financial resources (Packard, 2010;

Chakravarthy, 1982), organizational culture (IDRC/Universalia Model, 2005), strategic

leadership (Okorley and Nkrumah, 2012; Hansberry, 2002; Fowler, 2000) networking and

linkages (Andrews, 2012), and an external environment (IDRC/Universalia Model, 2005).

The aim of this research is therefore to understand the nature of PM capacity in NGOs using a

Resource Based perspective. First a framework for NGO capacity was created using existing

NGO and RBV research. Next, data from NGOs was collected and analysed using a multiple

case study perspective. Finally, a model describing NGO PM capacity is presented and

implications are discussed.

1.3 NGO Resources, Capabilities and Capacity

In strategic management, a resource can be individual tangible or intangible component and

capability is the combination and coordination of different resources (Carnes et al., 2016; Grant,

6

1996; Amit and Shoemaker, 1993). Therefore, an organisational capability can be defined as a

firm’s ability to deploy its resources to achieve an end result (Paradkar et al., 2015; Helfat and

Lieberman, 2002). The non-profit context, literature uses the term ‘organisational capacity’

instead of ‘organizational capability’ and/or ‘organizational resources’. Capacity is an abstract

term that describes a wide range of capabilities, knowledge, and resources that non-profits need

to be effective (Connolly and Lukas, 2002). Organizational capacity refers to the resources,

knowledge and processes employed by the organization and capacity factors include staffing,

infrastructure, strategic leadership, program and process management and networks and linkages

with other organizations (UNDP, 1998).

There is still some debate on the nature of NGO capacity by researchers (Bryan, 2011). Some

non-profit researchers consider NGO capacity as resources (Christensen and Gazley, 2008),

others as capabilities (Harvey et al., 2010) and some as resources and capabilities as part of

organizational capacity (Bryson, 2004; Sowa, Selden and Sandfort, 2004). This research adopts

the latter view of NGO organizational capacity as organizational resources and capabilities that

contribute to the effectiveness of the organizations. IDRC (1995) emphasizes the importance of

organizational capacity to increase performance in a sustainable way and to achieve the

organizational objectives of NGOs.

1.4 NGO PM Resources and PM Capacity

This section defines PM resources and capacity using the perspective presented in the non-profit

literature. Therefore, PM resources can be defined as PM tangible or/and, intangible elements

7

that support effective project operations. The researcher applies two terms in this research ‘PM

resources’ and ‘PM capacity’. The capabilities are subset of resources and in the non-profit

literature are mostly interpreted as a ‘know-how’ resource (Bryson, 2004; Sowa et al., 2004).

Therefore, the term ‘resources’ is applied to mean resources and capabilities in this study.

2 Literature Review

2.1 PM Capacity

Previous research in private sector organisations has indicated that PM capacity is a useful

approach for improving performance (Jugdev, 2011). Existing research in project capacity in

private and public sector organizations can be classified into an examination of the structural

elements of project capacity and the practice elements of project capacity.

2.1.1 Structural Elements of Project Capacity

The organizational environment can influence the delivery of Projects. At the macro level,

organizations may launch projects to deliver a planned or emergent strategy (Aubry and Hobbs,

2011). These projects therefore need to be aligned with strategy (Turner, 2016; Asrilhant et al.,

2007), and this area looks at the how the degree of fit between PM and strategy is defined and

measured (Martinsuo and Killen, 2014). Research has identified factors such as the top

management support (Kwak et al., 2015). Research has also examined the effect of

organisational culture on intra (Duffield and Whitty, 2015) and inter project knowledge flows

and across organizations (Ghobadi, 2015). In addition to project actors, internal organizational

configurations influence the execution of project activities (Thiry and Deguire, 2007). Projects

may be required to interface with operations (Killen and Kjaer, 2012) resulting in challenges of

communication and coordination ( Budayan et al., 2015).

8

Research also examines the establishment of project specific delivery structures such as Project

Management Offices or PMOs including rationale (Spelta and Albertin, 2012), characteristics

(Thorn, 2003) and the adaptation of these structures over time (Aubry et al., 2008).

2.1.2 Project Capacity as a collection of Practices

Project capacity has also been viewed as a collection of company practices that are identified and

assessed using tools such as maturity models (Gomes et al., 2015; Andersen and Jessen, 2003).

These models generally examine for comparing project processes (Amendola et al., 2014)

Szulanski, 1996) to an idealized “Best practice” (Leybourne and Kennedyn, 2015) and makes

recommendations for improvement. Research has examined the identification, formulation and

standardization of best practices (von Wangenheim et al., 2010) along with their contribution to

project outcomes (Besner and Hobbs, 2008; Williams, 2016). Best practices can inform the

development of metrics for project management (Papke-Shields et al., 2010). Since best practices

imply the coordination of internal knowledge assets, this research also examines team

interactions (Anantatmula, 2010) and the relationship between leadership and project outcomes

(Aga et al.,2016). An emerging stream of this research examines the adoption and impact of

maturity models on project practices (Bititci et al., 2015). PM capacity assessment models

examine to what level PM is widely practised in organisations and its repetitive nature in

bringing high probability of project success (Backlund et al., 2015; Ibbs et al., 2004).

9

2.2 Organisational Capacity of NGOs

In NGOs, capacity can be analysed at three levels: individual level, the organisational level and

the system level (Hawkes et al., 2016; UNDP, 1998; Kotellos et al., 1998). The individual level

focuses on the knowledge, skills, attitudes, accountability, beliefs, values, and motivations of

employees and volunteers in NGOs (Vallejo and Wehn, 2016; UNDP, 1998). Capacity at this

level refers to the individual’s capacity to function efficiently and effectively within an NGO.

Capacity development in this area seeks to enhance human resources including technical,

leadership and management using training and mentorship (Vallejo and Wehn, 2016; Boffin,

2002). The organisational level consists of all resources and capabilities within the control of the

NGO, including the human resources at the individual level, financial resources, physical

resources, information resources, technology resources and structure. Research in this domain

examines challenges faced by NGOs in managing these resources and the interactions between

them (Nanthagopan, 2012; Enemark and Molen, 2008).

Finally, the system level examines the interactions between NGOs and the environment in which

it is embedded. At this broader level, research in this area examines the impact of the political

setting, donors, funding agencies and the legal infrastructure that influence an NGO’s ability to

operate in a particular environment (Enemark et al., 2008). This approach may also be of value

to NGOs (Hawkes et al., 2016; Mingus, 2002) as PM capacity can aid NGOs in adapting to

complex environments, like Sri Lanka, while delivering projects supporting such activities as

research, initiative formulation, resource and risk management (Clarke, 1999). Therefore, this

study aims to understand the nature of PM capacity in NGOs.

10

2.3 Project Management and RBV

In the Resource-Based View (RBV), firms are modelled as a collection of resources ( Kamboj et

al., 2015; Mahoney and Pandian, 1992) that are coordinated to generate rents or income (Feng et

al., 2016; Penrose, 1959). RBV is a strategic perspective that relates to the competitive advantage

of a given firm to the tangible or intangible resources owned or controlled by the organisation

(Othman et al., 2015; Amit and Schoemaker, 1993; Wernerfelt, 1984; Rumelt, 1984).

Competitive advantage exists while organisations outperform competitors and is gained through

having superior organisational resources to provide products or services which yield greater

benefits to customers (Dirisu et al., 2013; Barney, 2002; Besanko et al., 2000; Porter, 1991).

Organisation-particular resource characteristics make certain resources more important to

organisations. Peteraf (1993) indicated that resources should be heterogeneous and not perfectly

mobile. Barney (1991) indicated that resources must be valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-

substitutable (VRIN). Subsequently, it was reorganised so that resources must be valuable, rare,

inimitable, and it requires organisational support for exploiting these resources (VRIO) in order

to achieve sustained competitive advantage (Barney, 1997). Strategic resources contribute to the

firm’s competitive advantage and tend to be knowledge-based (Grant, 2016; Amit and

Schoemaker, 1993), and are also known as organisational capabilities (Pisano, 2016; Barney

1991).

.

11

2.4.1 PM Resource Types

PM processes are based on intangible knowledge assets; explicit (codified) and tacit knowledge

assets (Delaket al., 2015; Fernie et al., 2003; DeFillippi and Arthur, 1998) also called ‘know-

what’ (codified) and ‘know-how’ (tacit) (Nonaka, 1994). In practice, all knowledge is a mixture

of tacit and explicit elements and these designations should be perceived as a range spectrum

rather than as definitive positions (Virtanen, 2013; Crossan et al., 1999; Nonaka and Takeuchi,

1995). However, to understand knowledge and knowledge-based resources, it is important to

understand the nature of each type (Botha et al., 2008).

Figure 2 illustrates PM resource types. Explicit knowledge is codified (Cohen and Olsen, 2015;

Hirai et al., 2007), and is fairly easy to identify (Delahaye, 2015; Brown and Duguid, 1998),

store, and retrieve (Wellman, 2009). This is the type of knowledge managed by formal

organisational systems as it exists in the form of documents and texts stored in physical and

virtual databases (Botha et al., 2008). In project management, explicit knowledge resources take

the form of standards, methodologies and procedures (Jugdev et al., 2011).

Tacit knowledge is context specific and hard to formalise or record as documents and is

generally in the heads of individuals and teams (Gutpa, 2011). Tacit knowledge is transferred

only by direct human contact, typically through face-to-face discussions (Hirai et al., 2007) and

is based on interaction and involvement (Nonaka, 1994). Tacit knowledge is viewed as valuable

(Wellman, 2009) as it supports innovation in organisations (Gamble and Blackwell, 2001) and

can be divided into technical and cognitive dimensions. The technical dimension covers informal

personal skills and crafts and could be called ‘know-how’. The cognitive dimension involves

12

beliefs, ideals, values, and mental models (Botha et al., 2008). In project management, tacit

knowledge resources take the form of team PM skills, knowledge-sharing activities and lesson-

learning sessions (Jugdev et al., 2011). Drucker (1993) highlights that effective acquisition and

applications of knowledge resources contribute highly to the high performance and competitive

advantage of organisations.

Figure 2: Project Management Resources

To date, most PM literature has focused on codified knowledge assets (Pollack and Adler, 2015).

Research has also focused on how these assets are developed and shared through communities of

practice (Lee et al., 2015). However, an emerging stream of research examines tacit PM

resources (Kim et al., 2015) such as project team trust, values and informal knowledge-sharing

processes (Judgev and Mathur, 2006; Jugdev and Thomas, 2002; Ibbs and Kwak, 2000). While

some previous research refers implicitly to resources such as the critical success factor

Project Management Resources

(Intangible Resources)

Explicit Resources

(Know-what)

Ex: PM methods, tools and techniques

Tacit Resources

(Know-how)

Ex: PM skills and team values

13

(intangible) and the project tools (tangible), there is little research that attempts a holistic

examination of the project resources in NGOs. As project management involves the use of both

explicit and tacit resources, it is important to examine both in order to understand the nature of

PM capacity in NGOs. The adoption of the RBV enables the examination of NGO resource

profiles (tacit and explicit) that support the delivery of projects in challenging environments.

2.4.2. Levels of PM Resources

The previous section examined the types of PM resource. This section examines existing work

on PM resources at two levels: Team Resources and Organisational Resources. PM team

resources are defined as explicit (codified) or tacit elements within teams (Jugdev and Mathur,

2006a). Explicit PM team resources consist of codified knowledge assets for example

professional certifications and written documents of PM practices (Mathur et al., 2007). Tacit

PM team resources consist of items based on informal sharing of knowledge including casual

conversations, mentoring, stories, brainstorming, and shadowing that address ways in which

participants exchange tacit knowledge (Jugdev and Mathur, 2006a). In PM, team resources have

been associated with the on-time completion of projects (PMI, 2004; Muriithi and Crawford,

2003).

Organisational PM resources have been defined as the extent to which the PM knowledge is

distributed, as well as the composition of this knowledge (Mahroeian and Forozia, 2012). PM

organisational resources include both explicit resources such as policies, rules and standards and

tacit resources (CIC, 2003) such as norms, values, and routines (Ekinge et al., 2000). In PM,

tacit organisational resources can influence the success and failure of complex projects (Verma,

14

1995; Jaeger and Kanungo, 1990). Belassi et al. (2007) found a significant relationship between

the presence of supportive policies for project management and new product development

project success. Further, firms with project-oriented routines (Doolen et al., 2003) are associated

with higher levels of technology transfer (Gopalakrishnan and Santoro, 2004). The previous

research on PM resources has identified types (explicit and tacit) and levels (team and

organisational) of resources. These paradigms are similar to the types and levels of capacity

identified in previous research on NGOs.

3.0 Research Methods

The PM research using an RBV perspective in the private sector organisations mainly carried out

by using quantitative approaches (Jugdev and Mathur, 2006a, 2006b). While this method enables

the statistical evaluation of relationships, it does not allow the researcher to understand the nature

of tacit PM resources in depth. More recent work has suggested the importance of using

inductive methodologies to develop theory on PM capacity from the RBV perspective (Jugdev,

2012). Further, the unique characteristics of NGO projects as identified in section 1.1 indicates

that these firms may have resource configurations and types that vary from private and public

sector organisations examined in previous research. Since in the NGOs’ sectors, the PM

resources and capacity still have not been identified, this research adopts an inductive

perspective with the aim of generating theory by looking at patterns in the data (Maylor and

Blackmon, 2005). It uses an exploratory multiple case study approach; using multiple sources of

evidence (Hancock and Algozzine, 2015; Yin, 2009) to investigate the contemporary

phenomenon of NGO PM capacity within its real-life context.

15

3.1. Research Setting

The setting of research, Sri Lanka, is an appropriate environment to examine NGO activities.

While Sri Lanka’s voluntary sector has existed since ancient times (Orjuela, 2005;

Wanigaratne, 1997), recent events have resulted in the country’s need for NGO support.

Sri Lanka was the setting for a violent civil war, and numerous local NGOs were created

specifically as a response to the needs caused by the conflict (Nanthagopan et al., 2015; DeVotta,

2005). Further, the country suffered heavy damage as a result of the 2004 tsunami which killed

around 40,000 Sri Lankans. International NGOs funding and operations are growing at present in

the country (DeVotta, 2005; Orjuela, 2005). Combined, these two events lead to an immediate

increase in NGOs operating out of Sri Lanka as most international donors select to direct aid

through NGOs to avoid government mismanagement of funds ( DeVotta, 2005).

3.2. Case Selection

A theoretical selection approach was used in order to gather data that most likely to serve the

theoretical purpose of research and its questions (Bryman, 2015; Silverman, 2000; Stake, 1995).

Cases were selected using a matching strategy (Seawright and Gerring, 2008) in which the

researcher selects similar cases fitting into the specified population. For this research, national

and international NGOs (national NGOs operate in Sri Lanka only while international NGOs

operate in multiple regions) were selected which had similar objectives and undertake similar

projects but vary by geographic scope. This enabled comparison of PM capacity at multiple

levels between organisations that operated in single vs multiple contexts, enabling the

identification of a wider range of PM resources. The most similar setting employs a minimum of

two cases (Skocpol and Somers, 1980). Eisenhardt (1989) suggested that there is no rule for the

ideal number of cases; however, a number between four and ten usually works well. Therefore,

16

the researcher selected four cases from the NGOs to do in-depth analysis on PM resources and

find similar patterns to identify the PM capacity. The cases have been reached theoretical

saturation (Emmel, 2013; Eisenhardt, 1989). The NGOs are divided into two groups: governance

and management. The study only considers the project management staff and each case

represents seven project staff members. It includes project managers and officers. The case study

does not include governance since the projects are mostly carried out by the management staff,

so they are more experienced in project management. Therefore, the researcher should be able to

gain much relevant information from the project staff. The case study approach is summarised in

Table 1.

Step Activity

Defining research

question

How does project management capacity support the successful

delivery of projects in NGOs?

Selecting cases Four cases selected, based on the most similar setting theory.

Crafting instruments and

protocols

In-depth interviews and semi-structured interviews are organised to

identify the existing PM resources and confirm the PM capacities of

NGOs. For the interview instruments, an open format questionnaire

is used to collect data through face-to-face and Skype interviews.

Archival data: The NGOs’ PM documents and tools are reviewed to

verify information provided from interviews.

Analyse the data All interviews are recorded by using audio recording aids and fully

transcribed, coded and analysed. Visual mapping diagram is used to

show the pattern of PM capacity.

Reaching closure All coding of interviews are grouped under the relevant levels and

linking of PM resources and capacity is illustrated with the help of

Visual Mapping strategy. The data collection is completed with data

saturation.

Table 1: Case Study Protocol

17

3.3. Implementation of Exploratory Case Study

The in-depth interviews and semi-structured interviews were organised to explore the themes for

the study. These techniques helped the researcher to obtain qualitative data from the project

managers where they discussed PM practices in NGOs. Additionally, archival data helped verify

what tangible PM resources are applied in NGOs. The researcher used open questionnaires to

provide opportunities for in-depth data collection. Initially, two pretesting interviews – one

participant from local NGO, and one participant from an international NGO – were conducted to

understand the nature of the diversity of PM resources in NGOs. The case study coding table was

prepared with the help of pretesting interviews and further helped plan and design the first stage

of the in-depth interviews to explore deeply PM resources in NGOs.

After the pretesting interviews, four case studies were conducted in two stages. The first stage of

interviews was done to explore PM resources and capacities. Twenty project staff members, five

from each selected NGO, were interviewed. The second phase was conducted to confirm the

first-phase findings. Eight senior project staff members, two from each selected NGO, were

interviewed. In the first stage, an open questionnaire was used by the researcher. Although this is

an in-depth interview, the researcher did not impose the predetermined questions and the

participants were given opportunities to discuss whole PM practices in the NGO in order to draw

deep exploration of themes. The second stage of the open questionnaire used for semi-structured

interviews. This was conducted after the themes explored in each division of the first-stage

interviews and aimed to confirm or modify the themes explored.

18

4.0. Exploratory Case Study Results

All interviews were recorded using audio recording aids and fully transcribed and coded with

Excel spreadsheet. All coding of interviews has been grouped under the relevant three levels:

team, organisational and collaborative social capacities. The explored elements of PM resources

and key dimensions detected in four case studies in the first phase of in-depth interviews are

described in the Table 5 (Annexure 1). The first column shows the explored elements and the

second column explains the key dimensions based in the explored elements. The third column

presents how many times specific elements were reported in the four case studies (C: Case). The

reported times specified are useful to see the respondents’ ease or familiarity in recalling their

PM applications. However, these numerical codes are not used to analyse the elements of PM

resources. The PM resources have been classified based on the detected elements from the first

and second stages of the case study results. The total number of counts of respondents is 978

times. Team PM capacity, organisational PM capacity and collaborative social PM capacity were

counted 157, 578 and 243 times respectively. Five key dimensions were counted frequently (>50

codes) in the case study interviews. Those are: PM tools and techniques (146), Formal meetings

for sharing knowledge (92), PM methodology, standards and process (71), PM office (59), and

Project marketing (55).

4.1. Results: Overview of PM Capacities in NGOS

The case study interviews identified three types of PM capacity, namely, team, organisational

and collaborative social capacities. The visual mapping diagram (Figure 3) presents a framework

for PM capacities in NGOs that consists of three types: Team, Organisational and Collaborative

Social.

19

Source: Case Study data

Figure 3: Visual Mapping of PM Resources and PM Capacity

These results suggest that PM capacities have three levels: team, organisational and collaborative

social levels, where the literature identified PM resources in two levels: team and organisational

levels. PM knowledge, skills and processes are evaluated in the team levels known as team PM

Project Management Capacity

Team PM Capacity Organisational PM Capacity

Collaborative Social PM Capacity

Casual conversations and Informal meetings

Brainstorming Sessions

Field visits

On-the-job training

Job Shadowing & Mentoring

Success and failure stories

Team Cohesion &Trust

Team PM Values

Team PM Expertise

Team Best PM practices

Effective PM Office

PM Methodology, Standards & process

PM Tools & Techniques

PM Information System

Project Monitoring & Evaluation Mechanism

Staff formal Capacity Building Programs

Formal Meetings for sharing knowledge

Project Communication Systems and Technology

Defined organisational PM Culture

Supportive Organisational Leadership to PM

Project Advisory from Government Bodies

Project Advisory from Donors

NGOs Intra & Consortium Meetings

Official Information Releases

Joint Project formal Interactions

Joint Project informal Interactions

Networking with Stakeholders

Beneficiary Connections in Projects

Project Marketing

Community of Practice through social on-line networks

20

capacities, while those assessed in the organisational level are called organisational PM

capacities. However, the organisation does not exist in isolation and NGOs interact with a

number of stakeholders in order to deliver project activities. These were identified as

collaborative social PM capacities, relational resources formed from interaction between the

project organisation, teams and external environment stakeholders. As defined in the literature

review chapter, explicit knowledge is codified and could be stored in physical or virtual

databases and tacit knowledge is context specific, hard to formalise and can only be transferred

through human interactions. However, in practice these explicit and tacit resources are mixed

and interdependent (Evans and Easterby, 2001; Crossan et al., 1999; Nonaka and Takeuchi,

1995). This research confirms that NGOs have a combination of both of these resource types as

part of each PM capacity (Botha et al., 2008; Inkpen and Dinur, 1998).

The study identified a new capacity called collaborative social PM capacity in the NGOs context.

The NGOs operate in the turbulent environment and all work for providing better service to the

vulnerable community to improve their living conditions. As therefore, the collaborative

resources highly support to the NGOs for getting appropriate field level information, sharing

knowledge and skills among the stakeholders, undertaking joint projects to address complex

community issues emerging from turbulent natural, economic and social environment.

5. Analysis and Discussion: Three Levels of PM Capacity

This section analyses each three level of PM capacities in the RBV perspective, with regard to

explicit and tacit insights. The findings of the qualitative case study are discussed below in the

context of literature review.

21

5.1. Team PM Capacity

Team PM Capacity consists of team PM knowledge-sharing and skills development process,

team PM culture and team competencies which contribute to effective and efficient team

performance in an organisation. Lusthaus (1995) emphasises enhancing team individual abilities

in pursuit of organisational objectives will improve organisational performance. Many

researchers emphasised team works increase productivity and effective teams are more profitable

to organisations (Katzenbach, 1998; McGovern, 1991; Goodman, 1986). In NGO literature, team

level generic capacities were identified as important assets for NGOs to sustain in the community

(Tozier de la Poterie, 2011). However, the nature of these capacities was not examined in detail.

The present study confirms that many of team PM resources identified in private sector

organisations are also applicable to NGOs.

In the present case study, all identified elements of team PM capacity in NGOs are highly

characteristic of tacit assets. Commonly, team knowledge-sharing activities take place informally

where the team acquires knowledge and skills through team interactions. Moreover, team values

and competencies are highly in-built within the teams. Therefore, these are intuitive knowledge

and rooted in team context, experience, practice and values (Ghosh and Scott, 2009; Cook and

Brown, 1999). Therefore, these tacit PM resources are highly important to NGOs for successful

delivery of projects. Hence, these tacit assets are crucial for NGO success.

The PM literature review revealed the following PM resources in the private sector

organisations; Project management expertise, project management practices, informal meetings,

project orientation programs, peer learning, on-the-job training, personal coaching and training

22

and mentoring (Ofori and Julian, 2014; Mathur et al. 2013; Rose et al., 2007; Jugdev and

Mathur, 2006a; Dainty et al., 2005). However, PM researches were not revealed the team PM

resources in the public and non-governmental organisations in the past.

The case study identified ten elements of PM resources in NGO sectors. Out of these, the first six

elements – casual conversations and informal meetings, brainstorming sessions, field visits, on-

the job training, job shadowing and mentoring, and success and failure stories – explain PM

knowledge and skills development of team members through team knowledge-sharing and skills

development activities. These activities commonly take place through team social interactions.

The other four elements – team cohesion and trust, team values, team PM expertise and Team

best PM practices – explain team PM culture and competencies. All these aspects overall

develop team PM capacities.

The literature has discussed PM knowledge and skills development and PM competencies to the

successive project operations of private sector organisations. Research in NGOs has identified

the importance of management structures (Khan et al., 2000) and appropriate team skills

(Youker, 2003). The findings of this case study extend previous work to identify the importance

of PM team culture. Since NGOs operate in the complex uncertain environments, a PM team

culture is required to ensure that member skills are coordinated to generate appropriate

outcomes. The respondents’ quotations on all the identified elements of PM capacity that take

place in NGOs and their importance are explained in Table 2 below.

23

Source: Case Study data

Table 2: Elements of Team PM Capacity

Elements of Team PM Capacity

Some Quotes of Respondents

Casual Conversations and Informal Meetings

“We have face-to-face informal discussions among staff members to share our project experiences.” “We have informal table-to-table discussions in our office place to share PM knowledge among our staff members.”

Brainstorming Sessions We regularly organise brainstorming sessions in our team level to find out solutions to project related issues.” “Whenever we come across problems in projects, we organise brainstorming activities to identify appropriate PM solutions.”

Field Visits

“We have field visits and field-level discussions to discuss our experiences of project progress.” “We used to have exposure visits; all other project staff members in similar projects from other areas will visit our project site and observe our project’s progress. Mainly, we explain our project activities and technical works to them and get their suggestions on our execution of project activities.”

On-the-job Training “We used to undergo on-the-job-training from our team manager to improve our project planning skills.” “Most times, I got the on-the-job training in the field level to improve my specific technical skills.”

Job Shadowing and Mentoring

“When I joined as new staff in my organisation, I had a job shadowing activity to learn how to carry out participatory rural appraisal in a village.” “Mentoring sessions helped me to expand my project planning skills.”

Success and Failure Stories

“Mostly foreign delegates tell us success and failure stories of their work experiences in different countries. This is very helpful for us to know what best PM practices are.” “Success stories of others motivated us to make our projects a success.”

Team Cohesion and Trust

“Our team members are highly trusted by each other; this is a vital reason for our project success.” “Team cohesion and trust lead to achieve our project objectives.”

Team PM Values

“Our team members have strong belief in PM applications which will improve their performance.” “We have confidence that team work will bring synergistic effects more than working alone.”

Team PM Expertise “Our project staff well understand the project life cycle and operations and they have very good expertise in planning and implementing the projects, which make us succeed our projects.” “We have very experienced and competent staff for our projects. They effectively apply PM tools and techniques in project activities.”

Team Best PM Practices

“Our team members do not strongly adhere by best practices; however, we generally follow our own NGO standards rather than global standards set by private accredited associations.” “We understand the PM global standards less and practising those less in our project operations. However, we understand best PM practices make our team more effective in our project operations.”

24

5.2. Organisational PM Capacity

Organisational PM capacity can be referred as PM resources, knowledge and processes

employed by the organisations. Previous studies on NGOs emphasised that organisational-level

generic capacities influence organisational performance and organisational effectiveness

(Connolly and Lukas, 2002; De Vita et al., 2001; Lusthaus et al., 1999; Lusthaus, 1995).

However, PM capacities in the organisational level were less discussed in the NGO PM literature

(Ika, 2012). However, organisational PM resources were substantially explored by previous

researchers in private sector organisations (Mahroeian and Forozia, 2012; Mathur et al., 2007)

and the following resources were identified; Staff capacity-building programs, effective project

coordination and leadership, shared project vision, objectives and policy, effective project

communications, project organizational structure and process for sharing knowledge

(Kaleshovska, 2014, Caniëls and Bakens, 2012; Hurt and Thomas; 2009; Raymond and

Bergeron, 2008; Jugdev and Mathur (2006a); White and Fortune, 2002). In Public sector

organisations, various PM tools and techniques were identified (Milosevic, 2003; Kliem and

Ludin, 1999). Further, in non-profit sector organisations, more specific PM tools and techniques;

logical framework matrix and cause-and-effect diagrams (Ika and Lytvynov, 2011; Carroll and

Kellow, 2011), monitoring and evaluation systems (Bornstein, 2006; Mebrahtu, 2002), staff

capacity building activities (Fowler, 2013) were identified.

The case studies revealed that explicit resources are widely held in the PM organisational

capacity except organisational PM culture. This means organisational PM resources will be kept

as written documents and/or transferable means in forms such as audio, video and software.

Therefore, organisational capacities are commonly formal and easily transferable. These

25

resources impart knowledge and skills more objectively while team PM resources are conveyed

highly implicitly to staff. In addition, the case study discovered team PM capacities are inherent

capacities to the organisation and not easily codified or transferable. However, organisational

PM capacities are overt capacities which are easily codified and transferable. Subsequently, the

case study findings ensure that team PM capacities (tacit resources) which generate

organisational explicit PM resources and organisational PM capacities (explicit resources)

facilitate generate team PM capacities. This reconfirms the findings of Cook and Brown (1999)

which pointed out that each type of knowledge can be used to facilitate the acquisition of other

knowledge.

Higher-level organisational PM capacities reflect that an organisation practices PM knowledge,

skills, tools and techniques at a very superior level in their project operations, and organisational

culture and leadership are highly supportive of greater PM practices in organisations. These

capacities are highly important to execute projects well and achieve PM success. While most

elements of organisational PM capacity are explicit, organisational PM culture combines explicit

and tacit PM aspects (Cheyne and Loan‐Clarke, 2009). This resource consists of organisational

setting, well-articulated values and beliefs to the project teams by way of policies or written

documents. Therefore, acquired culture belongs more to tacit resources and designed structure,

and written policies of PM culture fits more with explicit resource. All these aspects overall

develop organisational PM capacities.

The literature in NGOs, highly focused on more specific PM tools and techniques and staff

capacity building programs as organisational capacities, however, the case study revealed more

26

elements of organisational capacity such as PM information system, formal meetings for sharing

knowledge, effective project communications system and technology and defined organisational

PM culture as crucial elements for project success of NGOs. The resources identified in the case

study are more similar to the resources identified in private sectors since the NGOs currently like

private sectors operate high complexity of projects for rebuilding vulnerable communities. The

respondents’ quotations on all the identified elements of PM capacity that take place in NGOs

and their importance are summarised in Table 3 below.

27

Table 3: Elements of Organisational PM Capacity Source: Case Study data

Elements of Organisational PM

Capacity

Some Quotes of Respondents

Effective PM Office “The PMO provide technical support and other all support to field. Usually, PMO staff visit the fields and give necessary advice.” “The PMO is a centre of coordination and support for us. The PMO gives all necessary support to the project staff for successful project delivery.”

PM Methodology, Standards and Processes

“We have a program guideline manual to implement our projects, which is specifically developed to effectively execute our projects.” “We mostly use the PM methodologies designed by our organisation and those specially designed for NGOs for global practice, for example, the Sphere Handbook for Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response.”

PM Tools and Techniques

“In the needs identification stage, we use PM tools such as Venn diagram, resource mapping, problem tree analysis, needs prioritisation list, objective tree analysis, seasonal calendar, and stakeholder mapping and PM techniques as participatory rural appraisal (PRA), rapid rural appraisal (RRA), and participatory network analysis (PNA).” “In the planning stage, we use PM tools such as Logical Framework Matrix (LFM), action plan, Gantt chart, and monthly and weekly work plans and PM techniques such as results based management and rights based approach.”

PM Information System

“We don’t have very extensive applications of PMIS in our projects since it is hard to practise.” “We use PM software which is designed by our organisation to track our project progress in some cases.”

Project Monitoring and Evaluation Mechanism

“We use appropriate M & E mechanisms in our organisation to meet the requirements of stakeholders sufficiently.” “We have mid-, end- and post-evaluation plans and also conduct field-level assessments, desk-based assessments, and pocket-based assessments to evaluate progress and outcomes of our projects.”

Staff Capacity-building Programs

“We usually get training in project planning, proposal writing, monitoring and application of PM tools and techniques, which help us for performing our operations.” “I had no experience in NGOs project work when I joined this NGO as monitoring and evaluation officer. After capacity building training was provided to me, I became confident holding meetings with communities, donors and project teams to monitor and evaluate project activities.”

Formal Meetings for Sharing Knowledge

“We conduct monthly meetings, milestone meetings and senior management meetings which help us to report our project progress and get suggestions from other team members.” “Project review meetings where we discuss the ongoing issues of projects; usually we have weekly and monthly review meetings.”

Effective Project Communications System and Technology

“We do telephone, e-mail, and Skype communications among our staff members and those are effective for communicating our information.” “We do have a network sharing system. This means we have shared folders within our organisation. Any staff can access all information within our organisation from anywhere and can share their experiences through emails.”

Defined Organisational PM Culture

“Organisational culture should promote results-based management, transparency and accountability; which will induce effective team work in organisations.” “Organisational culture will influence team members’ performance, and give appropriate direction for everyone to lead the projects to a success.”

Supportive Organisational Leadership to PM

“Project-centred visionary leadership and values are the most important factors to project success.” “Actually, we are in the top management, we call it senior management. We provide technical support and M & E support to the project teams.”

28

5.3. Collaborative Social PM Capacities

Team and organisational PM capacities were discussed in terms of explicit and tacit resources

and exist within the organisational level. Team PM capacity consists of highly tacit resources

and organisational PM capacity comprises of highly explicit resources. Collaborative social PM

capacities combines both types of resources as it comprises of formal/ know-what (explicit) and

informal/ know-how (tacit) elements. It differs from both team and organisational capacity as it

is a systemic level capacity that can support both team and organisational resources with new

knowledge from external sources. The collaborations are founded in trusted relationships and

vital for project success (Tansley and Newell, 2007). Bjork et al (2011) emphasises the

networking activities improves the project performance in organisations. Burn (2004) highlights

receiving information from the external setting promotes organisations getting new knowledge

and achieving competitive advantage. Collaborative social PM capacity has been revealed as a

new capacity to the existing literature and these are most important to NGOs successful

operations.

Since NGOs are non-profit mission-driven organisations, unlike private sector organisations,

they face limits on how they can direct their resources and they are formally accountable to their

stakeholders. These stakeholders are heterogeneous and have different needs and objectives

(Reed et al., 2006). Also, in developing countries such as Sri Lanka, institutions

(government/regulations) may not be very strong (DeVotta, 2005). As a result, the environments

in which these organisations operate are characterised by a high degree of uncertainty with little

access to detailed reliable data to support project design and delivery. One respondent stated:

29

“The developing countries like Sri Lanka; collaborative social PM capacity is a very

important asset for NGOs as knowledge gap is a big issue for us.” (CPC 2)

Therefore, focusing only on the internal team and organisational capacities – such as informal

(tacit) team values, mentoring and story-telling – or formal (explicit) processes – such as

methodologies, processes and tools – may not be able to support the required adaption to host

community requirements. These, collaborative social capacities can enable NGOs to configure

team and organisational resources appropriately in the host environment. Further, the case study

identified that collaborative social PM capacities could be seen in two types as formal

collaborative social PM capacities and informal collaborative social PM capacities.

Subsequently, both capacities were explored as crucial for NGOs to attain new ideas for

successfully implementing projects for improving community benefits. Liu and Liu (2008) say

organisations relying only on within-the-boundary are not adequate to meet competitive forces.

Hence, absorbing external knowledge is indispensable for survival of organisations (Liu and Liu,

2008; Grant, 1996).

Formal collaborative social capacity refers to the capacity of the organisation to formally receive

knowledge and advisory recommendations from external networking sources. The case study

identified knowledge transfer takes place in NGOs with external bodies through formal means

such as project advisory from government bodies, project advisory from donors, NGOs intra and

consortium meetings, official information releases and joint project formal interactions. Informal

collaborative social capacity refers to the capacity of the organisation for getting knowledge

from informal external interactions. The case study explored that informal knowledge transfer

takes place with external bodies such as joint project informal interactions, networking relations

30

with stakeholders, beneficiary integration in projects, project marketing, and community of

practice through online social networks. One respondent commented on the importance of

informal collaborative capacity as quoted below.

“From my personal experience, I could say that informal knowledge sharing is the most

important and gives more knowledge to us than formal collaborative capacity. Sometimes,

formal sources don’t give all knowledge and skills to us and people fail to impart their

knowledge to others. But, informal interactions make our works more effective. For

example, having informal discussions with stakeholders, community discussions and

community of practice give more skills to me to develop my personal competency.”(CPC4)

Further, the case study reveals that both capacities are vital exclusively for local NGOs which

function in developing countries like Sri Lanka because people who work in these NGOs

comparably have fewer or lower PM competencies compared with people who work in

international NGOs. Therefore, absorbing knowledge from experts promotes performance of

team members. At the same time, the collaborative means promotes team members’ successive

project operations through knowledge transfer not only between the NGOs but also among the

stakeholders, such as community, donors and government agencies. The literature more focused

on team and organisational resources. However, the case study newly identified the collaborative

social PM capacity to the existing PM literature. NGOs are required to manage political, social,

legal, technical and cultural issues in host environments (Struyk, 2007). Managing these factors

may require stakeholder engagement in order to develop approaches that are sensitive to the host

country (Yu and Leung 2015). All the identified elements of collaborative social PM capacity

are explained with the quotations of respondents in Table 4.

31

Source: Case Study data

Table 4: Elements of Collaborative Social PM Capacity

Elements of Collaborative Social

PM Capacity

Some Quotes of Respondents

Project Advisory from

Government Bodies

“In government agent review meetings of NGO projects, we get useful suggestions and ideas from government staff for our projects.” “In some projects, we work with government authorities, especially in disaster management, education and health; we need to adhere to government advisory and policy.”

Project Advisory from Donors

“Donors visit every three months and review the progress of projects and will give their expert advisory to the project staff.” “Donors’ advisory makes our projects more effective and sustainable.”

NGOs’ Intra and Consortium Meetings

“At district level, we do have consortium meetings. A consortium, in a sense, is a group of NGOs registered under one umbrella. In this meeting, every NGO presents their challenges, opportunities and plans.” “NGO sector-wise meetings inform each NGO’s projects and progress to other NGOs.”

Official Information Releases

“Government releases the NGOs’ project information on their own websites, which help us to see the information of all NGOs and what they are involved in.”

“We distribute news letters to our stakeholders and receive news letters from other NGOs in which every NGO explains their projects.” Joint Projects Formal Interactions

“We do have formal meetings with our partner organisations where we discuss our projects’ progress, issues and solutions.” “Joint formal meetings are very useful to share project views among staff.”

Joint Projects Informal Interactions

“Joint field visits where we both (our organisation and partner organisation) will visit the field and will have discussions.” “In some cases, we visit other countries and observe their project mechanisms. I have visited Cambodia and learnt their system for livelihood projects. This gave me very good experience to work locally.”

Networking Relations with Stakeholders

“We have informal meetings with grassroot level organisations and attend the events organised by them, where we share our project information between us.” “Networking relationships with beneficiaries and other NGOs support us to implement our projects very successfully.”

Beneficiary Integration in Projects

“Making beneficiaries implement the projects and we do only the observation and advice. For example, we established a livelihoods co-operative society and allowed the community to run it. In this project, the community will implement the project and we will give necessary advice, ideas and trainings to them.” “This is the most important capacity for NGOs to take all the knowledge and skills from outside of the organisations. Mainly, community knowledge and skills are the most important capacity that we need to use.”

Project Marketing “We conduct project inauguration meetings with the stakeholders. In this meeting, we disclose all information on the project and planned activities; and there, stakeholders share their views over projects.” “We organise awareness programs and displays about projects to community people to get their views on our projects. These greatly help us to amend our projects to meet community requirements.”

Community of Practice through Online Social Networks

“On-line social networking gives more new ideas on project practices. It gives more confidence to the project staff to get ideas from similar practices from the professionals of other organisations and from other countries.” “On-line social networks sometimes help to solve our technical issues in projects.”

32

6. Conclusion and Implications

The RBV has been increasingly applied to explain the activities of firms as it forms an adaptable

framework for building theories (Kogut and Zander 2003). This research has identified the

resources that underpin PM capacity in NGOs and has highlighted the importance of intangible

resources. This is important as in uncertain environments where NGOs operate, explicit

resources such as maturity models have less value than resources that are built via actors (Grant

1996) in interaction with the environment (Jones and Khanna 2006).

A new PM capacity, Collaborative Social PM capacity has been identified in this study. This is

can enable NGOs to adapt to external environment by acquiring external knowledge via a

network of relationships to develop other internal PM capacities. For NGOs, these capacities will

be a critical to get the knowledge, skills, tools and techniques from the other NGOs or

stakeholders and collaborative works with other NGOs can improve the effective delivery of

community projects. Future research can examine this capacity in additional detail, as it suggests

that organizations, both public and private can engage stakeholders to manage external

uncertainty. This extends research from examining approaches to proactively manage

stakeholders to a wider range of network based engagement strategies that deliver mutual

benefit. For managers, there is a need to examine how stakeholders can extend the organizations’

sensing and scanning capabilities to support the adaptions necessary to operate in uncertain

environments.

The research has also identified the value of the RBV as an appropriate method to analyse PM

capacity in NGOs. While in the PM literature, tangible assets are increasingly discussed and

33

promoted as a source of competitive advantage and PM intangibles assets have not been focussed

(Jugdev, 2011). The PM models do not emphasize organisational processes and practices and

typically lack a connection between operations management and strategy. Few PM models have

been empirically tested and many are based on codified best practices that may need to be

adapted in the environments in which NGOs operate (Jugdev, 2011). This research has been able

to identify the resources that enable NGOs to meet the complex challenges of stakeholders in

difficult environments.

Past research has highlighted that even though organisations are deeply concerned about

developing traditional organisational capacities, such as building organisational systems and

structures, human resource development, financial resource development and leadership capacity

development (Wachira, 2008; Bryson, 2004), NGOs’ projects have a high failure rate in terms of

meeting quality, timeliness and being on budget to eradicate poverty and vulnerability (Ika,

2012; Dedu et al., 2011). Therefore, this study finding help organisations to understand the

nature of PM capacities in NGOs and how can these be developed for NGOs’ project to succeed.

The study reveals that three levels of PM capacity exist in NGOs. Those are team capacity,

organisational capacity, and collaborative social capacity. This expands on the common

conceptualization of two levels of resources (team and organizational) in existing work. PM

practitioners and NGOs not only need to work to develop the first two levels, but also need to

formally develop collaborative social capacity. Improvements in how projects are delivered by

NGOs will enable them to meet their stakeholders’ needs and their stated objectives effectively

such as quality specifications, budget and time schedules and improving specific conditions in

34

community. These concepts can be incorporated into the design of future tools including

maturity models that can help NGOs improve project performance.

From an academic perspective, Collaborative Social capacity can be explored further to identify

if it is present in differing industries and contexts. This capacity may be valuable in helping

organizations other than NGOs adapt to complex, uncertain environments such as high

technology which is characterized by rapid change. Further empirical study is needed to examine

the relationship between these PM capacities and the project success of NGOs and need further

more investigation on collaborative social PM capacities which are revealed as new capacity to

the existing literature.

References Aga, D.A., Noorderhaven, N. and Vallejo, B., 2016. Transformational leadership and project success: The mediating role of team-building. International Journal of Project Management, 34(5), 806-818.

Ahsan, K. and Gunawan, I., 2010. Analysis of cost and schedule performance of international development projects. International Journal of Project Management, 28(1), 68-78.

Amendola, L.J., Depool, T., Artacho, M.A., Martinez, L.B. and Martín, M., 2016. Proposal for a Maturity Model Based on Expert Judgment for Spanish Project Organisations. Project Management and Engineering Research, 41-57.

Amit, R. and Schoemaker, P., 1993. Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 33-46.

Anantatmula, V.S., 2010. Project manager leadership role in improving project performance. Engineering Management Journal, 22(1), 13-22.

Andersen, E.S. and Jessen, S.A., 2003. Project maturity in organisations. International journal of project management, 21(6), 457-461.

Andrews, R., 2012. Social capital and public service performance: A review of the evidence. Public Policy and Administration, 27 (1), 49-67.

Aubry, M. and Hobbs, B., 2011. A fresh look at the contribution of project management to organizational performance. Project Management Journal, 42(1), 3-16.

Aubry, M., Hobbs, B. and Thuillier, D., 2008. Organisational project management: An historical approach to the study of PMOs. International Journal of Project Management, 26(1), 38-43.

35

Backlund, F., Chronéer, D. and Sundqvist, E., 2015. Maturity assessment: towards continuous improvements for project-based organisations?. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 8(2), 256-278.

Bagci, C., 2003. Historical evolution of NGOs: NGO proliferation in the post-Cold War era. Avrupa Gunlugu, 4, 299-326.

Barney, J. B., 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17 (1), 99-120.

Barney, J. B., 2002. Gaining and Sustaining Competitive Advantage. 2nd edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Barney. J. B., 1997. Gaining and Sustaining Competitive Advantage. 1st edition. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Belassi, W., Kondra, A. and Tukel, O., 2007. New Product Development Projects: The Effects of Organizational Culture. Project Management Journal, 38 (4), 12-24.

Besanko, D., Dranove, D. and Shanley, M., 2000. Economics of Strategy. 2nd edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Besner, C. and Hobbs, B., 2008. Project management practice, generic or contextual: A reality check. Project Management Journal, 39(1), 16-33.

Bititci, U.S., Garengo, P., Ates, A. and Nudurupati, S.S., 2015. Value of maturity models in performance measurement. International journal of production research, 53(10), 3062-3085.

Björk, J., Di Vincenzo, F., Magnusson, M. and Mascia, D., 2011. The impact of social capital on ideation. Industry and Innovation, 18(6), 631-647.

Boffin, N., 2002. Health system capacity building: review of the literature. Antwerp: DGOS – AIDS Impulse Program. Institute of Tropical Medicine.

Bornstein L., 2006. Systems of Accountability, Webs of Deceit? Monitoring and Evaluation in South African NGOs. Development, 49(2), 52-61.

Botha, A., Kourie, D. and Snyman, R., 2008. Coping with continuous change in the business environment: knowledge management and knowledge management technology. Oxford: Chandos.

Brown, J. D., 1998. Statistics Corner: Questions and answers about language testing statistics: Reliability and cloze test length. Shiken: JALT Testing & Evaluation SIG Newsletter, 2 (2), 19-22.

Bryan, T. K., 2011. Exploring the Dimensions of Organisational Capacity for Local Social Service Delivery Organizations Using a Multi-Method Approach. Thesis (PhD). Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

Bryman, A., 2015. Social research methods. Oxford university press.

Bryson, J. M., 2004. Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations: A Guide to strengthening and sustaining organisational achievement. Public Administration Review, 67 (4): 702-717.

36

Bryson, J. M., Gibbons, M. J. and Shaye, G., 2001. Enterprise schemes for nonprofit survival, growth, and effectiveness. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 11 (3), 271-288.

Budayan, C., Dikmen, I. and Birgonul, M.T., 2015. Alignment of project management with business strategy in construction: evidence from the Turkish contractors. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 21(1), 94-106.

Caniëls, M.C. and Bakens, R.J., 2012. The effects of Project Management Information Systems on decision making in a multi project environment. International Journal of Project Management, 30(2), 162-175.

Carnes, C.M., Chirico, F., Hitt, M.A., Huh, D.W. and Pisano, V., 2016. Resource Orchestration for Innovation: Structuring and Bundling Resources in Growth-and Maturity-Stage Firms. Long Range Planning.

Carroll, P. and Kellow, A., 2011. The OECD: a study of organisational adaptation. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Chakravarthy, B. S., 1982. Adaptation: A promising metaphor for strategic management. Academy of Management Review, 7 (1), 35-44.

Cheyne, A. and Loan-Clarke, J., 2009. Organisational and corporate culture. Contemporary Human Resource Management, 243-275.

Christensen, R. and Gazley, B., 2008. Capacity for public administration: Analysis of meaning and measurement. Public Administration and Development, 28, 265–279.

CIC, 2003. Modelo Intellectus: Medición y Gestión del Capital Intelectual. Madrid: Centro de Investigación sobre la Sociedad del Conocimiento (CIC).

Clarke, A., 1999. A practical use of key success factors to improve the effectiveness of project management. International Journal of Project Management, 17 (3), 139-145.

Cohen, J.F. and Olsen, K., 2015. Knowledge management capabilities and firm performance: A test of universalistic, contingency and complementarity perspectives. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(3), 1178-1188.

Connolly, P. and Lukas, C., 2002. Strengthening Nonprofit Performance: A Founder’s Guide to Capacity Building. Location: Fieldstone Alliance.

Cook, S. D. N. and Brown, J. S., 1999. Bridging epistemologies: Between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization Science, 10 (4), 381-400.

Crawford, P. and Bryce, P., 2003. Project monitoring and evaluation: a method for enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of aid project implementation. International journal of project management, 21(5),363-373.

Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W. and White, R. E., 1999 An organizational learning framework: From intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24 (3), 522-537.

Dainty, A.R., Cheng, M.I. and Moore, D.R., 2005. Competency-based model for predicting construction project managers’ performance. Journal of Management in Engineering, 21(1), 2-9.

De Vita, C. J. and Fleming, C., 2001. Building Capacity in Nonprofit Organizations. Washington, DC: Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy (CNP). The Urban Institute.

37

Delahaye, B., 2015. Human resource development. Tilde Publishing.

Dedu, V., Staicu, G. and Niţescu, D. C., 2011. A Critical Examination of Foreign Aid Policy. Why it Fails to Eradicate Poverty?. Theoretical and Applied Economics, 4 (4), 37-48.

DeFillippi, R. J. and Arthur, M. B., 1998. Paradox in project-based enterprise: the case of film making. California Management Review, 40, 125-39.

Delak, B. and Damij, N., 2015, September. Knowledge Risk Assessments. In European Conference on Knowledge Management. Academic Conferences International Limited.

DeVotta, N., 2005. Civil society and non-governmental organizations in Sri Lanka: Peacemakers or parasites? Civil Wars, 7 (2), 171–182.

Dirisu, J. I., Iyiola, O. and Ibidunni, O. S., 2013. Product Differentiation: A Tool of Competitive Advantage and Optimal Organizational Performance (A Study of Unilever Nigeria Plc). European Scientific Journal, 9 (34).

Doolen TL, Hacker ME, Van Aken EM. The impact of organizational context on work team effectiveness: A study of production team. Eng Manag IEEE Transactions 2003; 50(3):285-296.

Drucker, P., 1993. Post-Capitalist Society. New York: Harper Business.

Duffield, S. and Whitty, S.J., 2015. Developing a systemic lessons learned knowledge model for organisational learning through projects. International journal of project management, 33(2), 311-324.

Easterly, W., 2009. How the millennium development goals are unfair to Africa. World Development, 37 (1), 26-35.

Eisenhardt, K. M., 1989. Building Theories from Case Study Research. The Academy of Management Review, 14 (4), 532-550.

Ekinge, R., Lennartsson, B. and Taxén, L., 2000. Organizational Knowledge as a Basis for the Management of Development Projects. Discovering Connections: A Renaissance through Systems Learning. Dearborn, Michigan.

Emmel, N., 2013. Sampling and choosing cases in qualitative research: a realist approach. Sage.

Enemark, S. and Molen, P. V., 2008. Capacity Assessment in Land Administration. Denmark: The International Federation of Surveyors (FIG). Fig Publication, No 41.

Evans, N. and Easterby-Smith, M., 2001. Three Types of Organizational Knowledge: Implications for the Tacit-Explicit and Knowledge Creation Debates. London, Ontario, Canada: Lancaster University.

Feng, H., Morgan, N.A. and Rego, L.L., 2016. Firm capabilities and growth: the moderating role of market conditions. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 1-17.

Fernie, S., Green, S. D., Weller, S. J. and Newcombe, R., 2003. Knowledge sharing: context, confusion, and controversy. International Journal of Project Management, 21, 177-87.

Fowler, A., 2000. The Virtuous Spiral, London: Earthscan.

Fowler, A., 2013. Striking a balance: A guide to enhancing the effectiveness of non-governmental organisations in international development. Routledge.

38

Gamble, P. R. and Blackwell, J., 2001. Knowledge Management: A State of the Art Guide. London, UK: Kogan Page.

Ghobadi, S., 2015. What drives knowledge sharing in software development teams: A literature review and classification framework. Information & Management, 52(1), 82-97.

Ghosh, B. and Scott, J. E., 2009. Relational alignment in offshore IS outsourcing. MIS Quarterly Executive, 8 (1), 19-29.

Golini, R. and Landoni, P., 2014. International development projects by non-governmental organizations: an evaluation of the need for specific project management and appraisal tools. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 32(2), 121-135.

Golini, R., Kalchschmidt, M. and Landoni, P., 2015. Adoption of project management practices: The impact on international development projects of non-governmental organizations. International Journal of Project Management, 33(3), 650-663.

Gomes, J. and Romão, M., 2015. Maturity, Benefits and Project Management Shaping Project Success. In New Contributions in Information Systems and Technologies. Springer International Publishing, 435-448.

Goodman, P. S., 1986. Designing effective work groups. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gopalakrishnan, S. and Santoro, M.D., 2004. Distinguishing between knowledge transfer and technology transfer activities: the role of key organizational factors. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 51 (1), 57-69.

Grant, R. M., 1996. Prospering in Dynamically-competitive Environments: Organizational Capability as Knowledge Integration. Organization Science, 7 (4), 375–89

Grant, R.M., 2016. Contemporary strategy analysis: Text and cases edition. John Wiley & Sons.

Gutpa, H., 2011. Management Information System (An Insight). 1st edition. New Delhi, India: International Book House Publishers.

Hancock, D.R. and Algozzine, B., 2015. Doing case study research: A practical guide for beginning researchers. Teachers College Press.

Hansberry, J., 2002. Tropman Report, vol. 1 no 1. Available from: http://forbesfunds.org/files/1CapacityBuilding_TR02.pdf [Accessed 15 April 2012].

Harvey, G., Skelcher, C., Spencer, E., Jas, P. and Walshe, K., 2010. Absorptive capacity in a non-market environment: a knowledge-based approach to analysing the performance of sector organizations. Public Management Review, 12(1),77-97.

Hawkes, S., Aulakh, B.K., Jadeja, N., Jimenez, M., Buse, K., Anwar, I., Barge, S., Odubanjo, M.O., Shukla, A., Ghaffar, A. and Whitworth, J., 2016. Strengthening capacity to apply health research evidence in policy making: experience from four countries. Health policy and planning, 31(2), 161-170.

Hekala, W., 2012. Why donors should care more about project management. Available from:http://www.devex.com/en/news/why-donors-shouldcare-more-about-project/77595 [Accessed 5 August 2014].

39

Helfat, C. E. and Lieberman, M. B., 2002. The birth of capabilities: market entry and the importance of pre‐history. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11 (4), 725-760. Hermano, V., López-Paredes, A., Martín-Cruz, N. and Pajares, J., 2013. How to manage international development (ID) projects successfully. Is the PMD Pro1 Guide going to the right direction?. International Journal of Project Management, 31(1), 22-30.

Hirai, C., Uchida, Y. and Fujinami, T., 2007. A knowledge management system for dynamic organizational knowledge circulation. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 6 (03), 509-522.

Hurt, M. and Thomas, J.L., 2009. Building value through sustainable project management offices. Project Management Journal, 40(1),55-72.

Ibbs, C. W. and Kwak, Y. H., 2000. Assessing project management maturity. Project Management Journal. 31, 32-43.

Ibbs, C. W., Reginato, J. and Kwak, Y. H., 2004. Developing Project Management Capability – Benchmarking, Maturity, Modeling, Gap Analyses, ROI Studies. Chapter 48 In: Morris, P. W. G. and Pinto, J. K., eds. The Wiley Guide to Managing Projects. John Wiley & Sons.

Ika, L. A. and Lytvynov, V., 2011. The “management‐per‐result” approach to international development project design. Project Management Journal, 42 (4), 87-104.

Ika, L. A., 2012. Project management for development in Africa: Why projects are failing and what can be done about it. Project Management Journal, 43 (4), 27-41.

Ika, L. A., Diallo, A. and Thuillier, D., 2012. Critical success factors for World Bank projects: an empirical investigation. International Journal of Project Management, 30 (1), 105-116.

Inkpen, A. C. and Dinur, A., 1998. Knowledge management processes and international joint ventures. Organization Science, 9 (3), 356-367.

International Development Research Centre (IDRC), Canada; International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR), the Netherlands; and ACP-EU Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA), the Netherlands (2005). Evaluating Capacity Development. IDRC. Available from: http://web.idrc.ca/openebooks/111-6/ [Accessed 15 March 2012].

Jaeger, A. M. and Kanungo, R. N., 1990. Management in Developing Countries. New York: Routledge.

Jones, G. and Khanna, T., 2006. Bringing history (back) into international business. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(4), 453-468.

Jugdev, K. and Mathur, G., 2006a. A Factor analysis of tangible and intangible project management assets. 4th PMI Research Conference, Montreal, QC, PMI.

Jugdev, K. and Mathur, G., 2006b. Project management elements as strategic assets: preliminary findings. Management Research News, 29, 604-17.

Jugdev, K. and Thomas, J., 2002. Project management maturity models: the silver bullets of competitive advantage. Project Management Journal, 33, 4-14.

40

Jugdev, K., 2011. Project Management: A Strategic Asset, The AMA Handbook of Project Management. 3rd ed. American Management Association.

Jugdev, K., Killen, C., Drouin, N. and Petit, Y., 2012. Advancing project and portfolio management research: Applying strategic management theories. International Journal of Project Management, 30 (5), 525-538.

Jugdev, K., Mathur, G. and Fung, T., 2011. Project management assets and project management performance: preliminary findings. In: Proceedings of Technology Management in the Energy Smart World (PICMET), 2011. Portland, OR, July 31 2011-Aug. 4 2011, 1-7.

Kaleshovska, N., 2014. Adopting project management offices to exploit the true benefits of project management. Економски Развој, (1-2), 151-165.

Kamboj, S., Goyal, P. and Rahman, Z., 2015. A resource-based view on marketing capability, operations capability and financial performance: An empirical examination of mediating role. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 189, 406-415.

Katzenbach, J. R., 1998. Teams at the top: Unleashing the potential of both teams and individual leaders. USA: Harvard Business Press.

Ker, A., 2003. Evaluating Capacity Development: Experiences from Canada, Chile, the Dominican Republic. South Africa and South Korea. Available from IDRC at: http://www. crdi. ca/en/ev. [Accessed 10 May 2013].

Khan, Z.A., Thornton, N. and Frazer, M., 2000. Experience of a financial reforms project in Bangladesh. Public Administration & Development, 20(1), 33-42.

Khang, D, B. and Moe, T. L., 2008. Success criteria and factors for international development projects: A Life–Cycle–Based Framework. Project Management Journal, 39 (1), 72-84.

Killen, C.P. and Kjaer, C., 2012. Understanding project interdependencies: The role of visual representation, culture and process. International Journal of Project Management, 30(5), 554-566.

Kim, S.C., Lee, J.S. and Shin, K.I., 2015. The impact of project management assets on the VRIO characteristics of PM process for competitive advantage.International Journal of Productivity and Quality Management, 15(2), 153-168.

Kliem, R. and Ludin, I., 1999, Tools and tips for today's project manager. Project Management Institute.

Kogut, B. and Zander, U., 2003. Knowledge of the firm and the evolutionary theory of the multinational corporation. Journal of international business studies, 34(6), 516-529.

Korten, C. David., 1987. Third generation NGO strategies: A key to people-centered development. World development, 15, 145-159.

Korten, C. David., 1990. Getting to the 21st Century: Voluntary Action and the Global Agenda. Connecticut: Kumarian Press.

Kotellos, K.A., Amon, J.J. and Benazerga, W.M., 1997. Field experiences: measuring capacity building efforts in HIV/AIDS prevention programmes. AIDS (London, England), 12, 109-117.

Kwak, Y.H., Sadatsafavi, H., Walewski, J. and Williams, N.L., 2015. Evolution of project based organization: A case study. International Journal of Project Management, 33(8), 1652-1664.

41

Lee, L., Reinicke, B., Sarkar, R. and Anderson, R., 2015. Learning through interactions: improving project management through communities of practice. Project Management Journal, 46(1), 40-52.

Lewis, D. and Kanji, N., 2009a. Non-Governmental Organizations. New York: Routledge.

Leybourne, S. and Kennedy, M., 2015. Learning to Improvise, or Improvising to Learn: Knowledge Generation and ‘Innovative Practice’in Project Environments. Knowledge and Process Management, 22(1), 1-10.

Lillis, B. and Lane, R., 2007. Auditing the strategic role of operations. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9 (3), 191–210.

Liu, M. S. and Liu, N. C., 2008. Sources of knowledge acquisition and patterns of knowledge-sharing behaviors—An empirical study of Taiwanese high-tech firms. International Journal of Information Management, 28 (5), 423-432.

Lusthaus, C., Adrien, M. H., Anderson, G., Carden, F. and Montalvan, P., 2002. Organizational Assessment: A framework for improving performance. Ottawa, Canada: International Development Research Centre /Inter-American Development Bank.

Lusthaus, C., Adrien, M., Anderson, G. and Carden, F., 1999. Enhancing Organizational Performance: A Toolbox for Self-assessment. Ottawa, Canada: International Development Research Centre.

Lusthaus, C., Anderson, G. and Murphy, E., 1995. Institutional Assessment: A Framework for Strengthening Organizational Capacity for IDRC’s Research Partners. Ottawa, Canada: International Development Research Centre.

Lyons, M., 2001. Third Sector: The contribution of nonprofit and cooperative enterprises in Australia. Allen & Unwin.

Mahoney, J. T. and Pandian, J. R., 1992. The resource‐based view within the conversation of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 13 (5), 363-380.

Mahroeian, H. and Forozia, A., 2012. Challenges in Managing Tacit Knowledge: A Study on Difficulties in Diffusion of Tacit Knowledge in Organizations. International Journal of Business and Social Science 3 (19), 303-308.

Malena, C., 1995. A Practical Guide to Operational Collaboration between the World Bank and Non-Governmental Organization. Washington, D.C: World Bank,

Martinsuo, M. and Killen, C.P., 2014. Value management in project portfolios: Identifying and assessing strategic value. Project Management Journal, 45(5), 56-70.

Mathur, G., Jugdev, K. and Fung, T., 2007. Intangible project management assets as determinants of competitive advantage. Management Research News, 30 (7), 460–475.

Mathur, G., Jugdev, K. and Shing Fung, T., 2013. Project management assets and project management performance outcomes: Exploratory factor analysis. Management Research Review, 36(2),112-135.

Maylor, H. and Blackmon, K., 2005. Researching business and management: A roadmap for success. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

42

McGovern, F., 1991. Teaming up. USAir Magazine, 13, 41-49.

Mebrahtu, E., 2002. Perceptions and practices of monitoring and evaluation: international NGO experiences in Ethiopia. Development in Practice, 12(3-4), 501-517.

Milosevic, D.Z., 2003. Project management toolbox: tools and techniques for the practicing project manager. John Wiley & Sons.

Mingus, N., 2002. Alpha Teach Yourself Project Management in 24 Hours. Madison, WI: CWL.

Muriithi, N. and Crawford, L., 2003. Approaches to project management in Africa: Implications for international development projects. International Journal of Project Management, 21 (5), 309-319.

Nadelman, E. A., 1990. Global prohibition regimes: The evolution of norms in international society. International Organization, 44 (4), 479–526.

Nalinakumari, B. and MacLean, R., 2005. NGOs: A primer on the evolution of the organizations that are setting the next generation of “regulations”. Environmental Quality Management, 14 (4), 1-21. Nanthagopan, Y., Williams, N. and Page, S., 2015. Understand The Nature of Project Management Capacity with the Resource Based Perspective: Exploratory Case Study in Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in Sri Lanka. Annual Research Symposium Proceedings, NCAS, Sri Lanka, 72-73. Nanthagopan, Y., 2012. Impact of Resources and Management on Organizational Performance, a comparative study between the local and international non-governmental organizations in Vavuniya district, Sri Lanka. Excel International Journal of Multidisciplinary Management Studies (EIJMMS)-Vol-02 (08), 33-44.

Ngacho, C. and Das, D., 2014. A performance evaluation framework of development projects: An empirical study of Constituency Development Fund (CDF) construction projects in Kenya. International Journal of Project Management, 32(3), 492-507.

Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H., 1995. The Knowledge Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Foster Creativity And Innovation For Competitive Advantage. New York: Oxford University Press.

Nonaka, I., 1994. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5, 14-37.

Ofori-Dankwa, C. J. and Julian, S., 2014. A heuristic model for explaining diversity's paradox. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 27(1),147-161.

Okorley, E. L. and Nkrumah, E. E., 2012. Organisational factors influencing sustainability of local non-governmental organisations: Lessons from a Ghanaian context. International Journal of Social Economics, 39 (5), 330–341.

Orjuela, C., 2005. Civil society in civil war: The case of Sri Lanka. Civil Wars, 7 (2), 120–137.

Othman, R., Arshad, R., Aris, N.A. and Arif, S.M.M., 2015. Organizational Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage of Cooperative Organizations in Malaysia. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 170, 120-127.

43

Packard, T., 2010. Staff perceptions of variables affecting performance in human service organizations. Non-profit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39 (6), 971-990.

Papke-Shields, K.E., Beise, C. and Quan, J., 2010. Do project managers practice what they preach, and does it matter to project success?. International Journal of Project Management, 28(7), 650-662. Paradkar, A., Knight, J. and Hansen, P., 2015. Innovation in start-ups: Ideas filling the void or ideas devoid of resources and capabilities?. Technovation, 41, 1-10.

Penrose, E. T., 1959. The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. New York: Wiley.

Peteraf, M. A., 1993. The Cornerstones of Competitive Advantage: A Resource-Based View. Strategic Management Journal, 14 (3), 179–191.

Pisano, G.P., 2016. Towards a Prescriptive Theory of Dynamic Capabilities: Connecting Strategic Choice, Learning, and Competition. Harvard Business School Technology and Operations Management Unit Working Paper, 16-146.

PMI, 2004. A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK Guide), Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.

Pollack, J. and Adler, D., 2015. Emergent trends and passing fads in project management research: A scientometric analysis of changes in the field. International Journal of Project Management, 33(1), 236-248.

Porter, M. E, 1996. What is Strategy? Harvard Business Review, November-December, 61-78.

Porter, M. E., 1991. Towards a dynamic theory of strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 95-117.

Raymond, L. and Bergeron, F., 2008. Project management information systems: An empirical study of their impact on project managers and project success. International Journal of Project Management, 26(2), 213-220.

Reed, M. S., Fraser, E. D. and Dougill, A. J., 2006. An adaptive learning process for developing and applying sustainability indicators with local communities. Ecological Economics, 59 (4), 406-418.

Rose, J., Pedersen, K., Hosbond, J.H. and Kræmmergaard, P., 2007. Management competences, not tools and techniques: A grounded examination of software project management at WM-data. Information and Software Technology, 49(6), 605-624.

Rumelt, D. P., 1984. Towards a strategic theory of the firm; alternative theories of the firm. Elgar Reference Collection, International Library of Critical Writings in Economics, 2002 (2), 286-300.

Schmidt, H. and Take, I., 1997. More Democratic and Better? The Contribution of NGOs to the Democratization of International Politics and the Solution of Global Problems. Working Paper No. 7. Frankfurt: World Society Research Group, Technical University Darmstadt Johann Wolfgang Goethe University.

Seawright, J. and Gerring, J., 2008. Case Selection Techniques in Case Study Research: A Menu of Qualitative and Quantitative Options. Political Research Quarterly, 61 (2), 294-308.

44

Shapiro, C., 1989. The theory of business strategy. The Rand Journal of Economics, Wiley, 20 (1), 125-137.

Shleifer, A., 2009. Peter Bauer and the failure of foreign aid. Cato J., 29, 379.

Silverman, D., 2000. Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook. London: Sage Publications.

Skocpol, T. and Somers, M., 1980. The uses of comparative history in macrosocial inquiry. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 22 (02), 174-197.

Sowa, J. E., Selde, S. C. and Sandfort, J. R., 2004. No Longer Unmeasurable? A Multidimensional Integrated Model of Nonprofit organisational effectiveness. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33 (4): 711-728.

Spelta, A.G. and Albertin, A.L., 2012. Project Management Offices in the IT Area: A Context–Discriminant Model for their Establishment. Information Systems Management, 29(1), 40-54.

Stake, R. E., 1995. The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Strichman, N., Bickel, W. E. and Marshood, F., 2008. Adaptive capacity in Israeli social change nonprofits. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 37 (2), 224-248.

Struyk, R.J., 2007. Factors in successful program implementation in Russia during the transition: pilot programs as a guide. Public Administration and Development, 27(1), 63-83.

Szulanski, G., 1996. Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic management journal, 17(S2), 27-43.

Tansley, C. and Newell, S., 2007. A knowledge-based view of agenda-formation in the development of human resource information systems. Management learning, 38(1), 95-119.

Thiry, M. and Deguire, M., 2007. Recent developments in project-based organisations. International journal of project management, 25(7), 649-658.

Thorn, M.E., 2003. Bridge over troubled water: implementation of a program management office. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 68(4), 48-59.

Tozier de la Poterie, A. S., 2011. Empowering Development? Assessing the Impact of NGO-NGO-Community Partnerships on Capacity Development. Turner, R., 2016. Gower handbook of project management. Routledge.

UNDP, 1998. Capacity Assessment and Development. Technical Advisory Paper No.3. Management Development and Governance Division, Bureau for Development Policy, New York: United Nations Development Programme. Available from: http://magnet.undp.org/Docs/cap/CAPTECH3.htm [Accessed 10 August 2012].

UNDP, 2014. Human Development Report 2014: Sustaining Human Progress: Reducing Vulnerabilities and Building Resilience. New York: United Nations Development Programme. Available from: http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdr14-report-en-1.pdf [Accessed 10 January 2015].

Vallejo, B. and Wehn, U., 2016. Capacity development evaluation: the challenge of the results agenda and measuring return on investment in the global south. World Development, 79, 1-13.

45

Verma, V. K., 1995. Organizing projects for success: The human aspects of project management. Upper Darby, PA: Project Management Institute.

Virtanen, I., 2013. ‘In Search for a Theoretically Firmer Epistemological Foundation for the Relationship between Tacit and Explicit Knowledge’, Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, Volume 11 Issue 2, 118-126.

Von Wangenheim, C.G., da Silva, D.A., Buglione, L., Scheidt, R. and Prikladnicki, R., 2010. Best practice fusion of CMMI-DEV v1. 2 (PP, PMC, SAM) and PMBOK 2008. Information and software technology, 52(7), 749-757.

Wachira, E. M., 2008. Organizational Capacity Audit Tool. Global eSchool and Community Initiative. Available from: http://www.gesci.org/assets/files/Knowledge%20Centre/capacity-audit-tool.pdf [Accessed 10 September 2012].

Wanigaratne, R., 1997. The State-NGO relationship in Sri Lanka: Rights, interests, and accountability. In: Hulme, D. and Edwards, M., eds., NGOs, States and Donors: Too Close for Comfort? London: Macmillan Press, 79-92.

Weerawardena, J., McDonald, R. E. and Mort, G. S., 2010. Sustainability of nonprofit organizations: An empirical investigation. Journal of World Business, 45 (4), 346-356.

Wellman, J., 2009. Organizational learning: How companies and institutions manage and apply knowledge. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Wernerfelt, B., 1984. The Resource-Based View of the Firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5 (2), 171–180.

White, D. and Fortune, J., 2002. Current practice in project management—An empirical study. International journal of project management, 20(1), 1-11.

Williams, T., 2016. Identifying Success Factors in Construction Projects: A Case Study. Project Management Journal, 47(1), 97-112.

World Bank, 2001. Comprehensive Development Framework, Questions and Answers, Update. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Yalegama, S., Chileshe, N. and Ma, T., 2016. Critical success factors for community-driven development projects: A Sri Lankan community perspective. International Journal of Project Management, 34(4), 643-659.

Yin, R. K., 2009. Case study research: Design and Methods. 4th edition. London : Sage.

Youker, R., 2003. The nature of international development projects. Paper presented at PMI Conference, Baltimore, MD. Yu, J. and Leung, M.Y., 2015. Exploring factors of preparing public engagement for large-scale development projects via a focus group study. International Journal of Project Management, 33(5), 1124-1135.

46

47

Annexure 1:

Table 5: Detecting Elements of PM resources and Dimensions

Detected Elements across the data set

Key Dimensions No of counts

C1 C2 C3 C4 Total

Conducting Informal meetings Informal Discussions Skills and Experience Sharing meetings Experience sharing discussions Lesson-learning sessions

Informal Meetings 04 05 06 05 20

Casual Discussions with colleagues Casual Conversations

00 01 00 01 02

We do brainstorming sessions to discuss important issues We organise sessions to generate new ideas We do brainstorming sessions to find out better solutions

Brainstorming Sessions

02 00 03 00 05

Field level discussions Field level meetings Review visits and discussions Review visits and observations

Field Level Discussions & Review Visits

01 00 00 03 04

We do personal coaching sessions We got personal coacher

Personal Coaching 00 05 02 03 10

I did on job training in the field level On job training we use to share our skills to junior staff

On-the job training 03 00 03 00 06

Shadowing through observations Shadowing through meetings Mentoring sessions and expert guidance

Job shadowing & Mentoring

04 02 03 01 10

Cases discussions Case study writings Success story-telling and presentations

Case Studies & Success Stories

01 06 04 00 11

Bringing people under one program team changing their mind set under one common goal Some staffs are not willing to work together Some people are facing difficulties to adopt team culture

Team Cohesion and Trust

01 01 04 00 06

Team Transparency Team Accountability Following team norms Working for the team objectives Team work and team commitment are more important We have very committed team members Participatory decision-making Accepting members suggestions

Team Values 05 02 04 03 14

Using the resources at maximum level by doing proper planning and controlling. Understanding of project life cycle and operations

Deeper understanding of project Lifecycle and operations

07 06 05 07 25

We got very experienced and competent staff Project management experience is good Strong PM skills

PM Expertise 05 06 08 07 26

Good PM practices Best PM Practices 01 01 08 04 14 We have improved in all stages of our process We design new tools for PM practice Designing tailor-made software

Synthesise new knowledge in PM

01 02 01 00 04

We got project office Project organisation , Matrix, Functional, effective structure

PM Office & Structure

25 06 23 05 59

48

Program Handbook, Strategic Program document, Administration Handbook, Humanitarian Assistance Plan, Operational Manual, Logistic Manual, Humanitarian Accessibility Framework, Organisational hand book, Finance Hand book, HR Hand book, individual project implementation agreement (IPIA), Project manual, Ethics Handbook, PMBOK, Prince II, Agile, Sphere Humanitarian Handbook, CBOs assessment standards, Policy, Guidelines, Procedures, Grant policy, Organisational policy, Project policy guide, Child right policy, women protection policy, HR Policy, Terms of Reference

PM Methodology, Standards & Process

19 15 18 19 71

Action Plan, Work break down structure, Gantt Chart, budget, Logic frame, Check List, LFM, Venn diagram, Resource Mapping, Problem tree analysis, objective tree analysis, Network Analysis, Seasonal Calendar, Risk Mapping, Service delivery analysis, Step by step guide, Social Mapping, Income circle, Structural/Architectural design, implementation plan, PM Software, Stakeholder mapping, Analysis software, Indicators, BOQs, Village development plan, Needs prioritisation list, Operational Plan, Work plan, Monthly and weekly plans, Staff monthly targets, Risk planning Participatory needs identification, Vulnerable capacity assessment, Right based approach, Data collection, PRA (Participatory Rural Appraisal), Observations, Interviews, Questionnaires, Results based management, Results Based Reporting, Base Line survey, End Line Survey, Secondary data, RRA (Rapid rural appraisal), PNA (Participatory Network Analysis), Bottom Up Approach, Tailor-Made Program,

PM Tools & Techniques

41 34 38 33 146

Project Management Information System (PMIS), Knowledge management system, Executive Decision tools, Data base management,

PM Information System

00 03 01 00 04

Process and Impact Monitoring plan, Sustainability Plan, Evaluation plan, Field reports, Complaint mechanism, Standard manual for M & E, M&E framework, Internal and external audit, suggestion box from community, Review visits, indicators, Mid evaluation plan, End evaluation plan, Post evaluation plan, Field level assessment, Desk based assessments, Pocket based assessments

Project M & E Mechanism

04 10 08 09 31

Training, Short courses, Online courses, PM certifications, Formal PM courses, capacity-building trainings, Foreign workshops

Staff Capacity-building programs

08 07 09 07 31

Induction programs, Superior staff inform to the junior staff, Diary, Wall hanger, Meetings, Handbooks, staff meetings, workshops, Project orientation programs

Shared project vision, objectives and policy

08 07 07 06 28

Progress Meetings, Formal Meetings, Reporting , Annual program review, Displays in boards, Technical Meetings, Online documents, Open documents, project meetings, staff meetings, Review meetings, Planning meetings, Integration meetings, Regular meetings, Team planning. Field level discussions, Field level reports, M&E Co-group meetings, Milestone meetings, Project Team meetings, Annual Reports, Meeting minutes

Formal Meetings for sharing knowledge

19 36 21 16 92

49

Appropriate channel, Telephone , Email, Skype, Online, TELE conference, Facebook, Network-sharing system

Effective project communication

17 13 03 04 37

Job design, Selection of team, Motivation system, Rewarding system, Career path

Right team selection, Team motivation & Career path

14 03 05 05 27

Organisation culture promotes project works and its transparency Culture motivates the team works Non-project staff support to project staff

Supportive organisational Culture to PM

07 02 04 00 13

Supervisor guidance, project manager guidance, conducting project review meetings, conducting financial review meetings, Monthly meetings (Bottle neck), Management level meetings, Technical Support, Planning support, Report writing , proposal development, Advisory in implementation, M &E support

Supportive Organisational Leadership to PM

02 13 01 23 39

Technical support, Project Approval, Policy & Guidance, Government advocacy, Meetings, GA review, Government policy

Project Advisory from Government Bodies

06 03 02 05 16

Technical support, Guidance , Field level discussions, Project review discussions, Planning and implementing support

Project Advisory from Donors

01 02 03 05 11

Regular meetings, Intra forum, Cluster meetings, Peer review meetings, Partners meetings, Consortium meetings, Coordination meetings, Sectoral meetings

Intra and Consortium meetings

07 01 01 07 16

Community advocacy Advocacy task force

Community Advocacy

01 00 01 00 02

Magazines, Publications, Websites, Social media, Meetings, Leaflets, , ministry level meetings, Broachers, final reports, Regional Manual, Reports, Government websites, Letters

Official Information releases

08 05 04 13 30

Joint planning, Joint implementation, Participatory monitoring, Regular meetings, Group Discussions, informal meetings, Lesson-learning sessions, Outsourcing programs, Technical support, Inter-exposure visits, Joint field visits, Peer group discussions

Joint project Interactions

08 09 07 13 37

Face-to-face discussions, telephone, email, video conferences and meetings, Informal interactions, informal meetings, experience sharing meetings, Stakeholders informal meetings, CBOs Meetings, Focus group discussions

Networking with stakeholders

10 10 05 07 32

Planning, Technical, Decision-making, Implementing, Experience sharing, Meetings, Review meetings, CBOs meetings, Producer group discussions, community level meetings, Complaint Box

Beneficiary integration in projects

03 04 06 08 21

Inauguration programs, Propaganda programs, Meetings, Awareness programs, Home Visits, Exhibitions , Theater Program, Stakeholders meetings, community meetings, stakeholders meetings, Notice board, Direct interviews,

Project Marketing 14 17 10 14 55

Facebook, Community discussions, Twitter, Google, Internal Websites, Project review with partners, Discussions with beneficiary, informal meetings, Delegates/Expatriates sharing their experiences, Delegates Visits and discussions, Exposure visits to other countries, International Forums, Regional conferences

Community of practice

02 08 06 07 23